Delhi

North East

cc/185/2013

Satya Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Motors - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2024

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.185/13

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Satya Rani Sain, W/o Shri Daya Ram Sain, R/o RH-33, Sector 2, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P 201005	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s Ashok Motors, Through its Manager F-385, Chand Bagh, Main Wazirabad Road, Opp. Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110094   M/s Hindustan Motors Limited, Through its Manager, P.O. Hindmotor, Distt. Hooghly, West Bengal-712233	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

30.05.2013 13.05.2024 18.07.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that in the month of March 2009 she had booked a new Ambassador car Top Model with the Opposite Party No. 1 who is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No. 2.  Complainant stated that on 08.04.2009 Opposite Party No. 1 had delivered the inferior model of the car instead of Grand CNG Top Model which was completely defective and Complainant had to suffer loss to the tune of           Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant stated that she deposited Rs. 5,46,029/- on 02.04.2009. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 took her signature in delivery challan fraudulently by saying that he would provide her MP3 CD player, some tools and other decorative articles. Complainant stated that when she made a complaint against the Opposite Party No. 1 then manger of Opposite Party No. 1 assured that after 2-3 days they would change the car and deliver her the Top Model CNG. Complainant stated that after 3 days when the Complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 then they could not change the car. Complainant stated that the said car started to give the trouble in different manners like the engine was not working properly. Complainant stated that first service was done in 22.04.2009 and again the service was done on 29.04.2009. Complainant stated that as per warranty Opposite Party No. 1 had assured that the Opposite Party No. 1 would liable if the said car became faulty before 50,000 kms or 12 months. Complainant stated that after three services, the engine of the car was not working properly. Complainant stated that the said car giving mechanical problem just few days after its purchase on regular basis and Complainant intimated the same to the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that the said car again was got repaired for mechanical defects on 23.02.2010, 03.07.2010, 09.10.2010, 14.03.2011 and 11.05.2011 etc. and on 03.07.2010 the Opposite Party No. 1 had repaired the complete engine work after getting the approval from Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that after 8 months the entire engine again be defected and she visited Opposite Party with the mechanical default. Complainant stated that on 06.02.2012 again the said car was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 for multiple defects and after inspection Opposite Party No. 1 told that the said car needs to repair the whole engine. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 after repairing the car asked the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 58,959/- but Complainant did not agree for the same. After that Opposite Party No. 1 told Complainant that they had to seek the permission from the Opposite Party No. 2 and till then the said car would remain in the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that when she approached Opposite Party No. 1 for taking the delivery of the car and Opposite Party No. 1 pretended that they were awaiting permission and now it had been over six months but both the Opposite Parties had not delivered the car. On 28.08.2012, Complainant sent a legal notice and Opposite Party sent their reply vide order dated 22.09.2012. Complainant stated that she has no other option but to pay the sum of           Rs. 58,959/- and took the delivery of the said car from the workshop on 23.08.2012. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- along with interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of purchase of the said car towards the irreparable losses including mental and physical pain.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable because the car of the Complainant met with accident two times and work of engine was done under goodwill warranty on 12.09.2010. The allegations of the Complainant has been denied. It is stated that there is no defect in the working of the car. It is stated that as per the vehicle history of the car it had done 52,178 kms as on 06.02.2012 which clearly shows that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that the car has done more than 52,000 kms which clearly shows that there is no mechanical defect or manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4.  The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavits of Shri. C.M Sharma, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri. Priya Rajan, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that she had purchased a Ambassador car (CNG) from Opposite Party No. 1. Her case is that she had booked the top model of the said car but she was not delivered the top model of the said rather she was delivered some other model which was below the top model. Admittedly, the Complainant has taken the delivery of the car. In case she was not being given the model of the car booked by her, then she should not have taken the delivery of the car. Meaning hereby the Complainant has taken the delivery of the car knowingly that the said car was not of that model which she had booked. Her case is that she was fraudulently made to sign the delivery receipt of the car. Admittedly the Complainant did not make any complaint before any authority in this regard therefore this version of the Complainant cannot be believed.
9. The case of the Complainant is that thereafter she made a complaint and she was assured that after 2-3 days she will be delivered some other car instead of the car which she had already taken. It is a well known fact that the car is not an ordinary product which the customer can exchange after few days of the purchasing. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Opposite Party No. 1 had assured the Complainant that she would be delivered other car after few days. This plea taken by the Complainant is vague and cannot be believed.  
10. Further, the case of the Complainant is that from the very beginning of the purchase of the car, the car was not working properly. Her case is that there were some inherent/manufacturing defects in the car. The burden to prove this lies upon the Complainant by leading some evidence. Apart from her affidavit, the Complainant did not lead any expert evidence. Further, the perusal of the vehicle history of car shows that as on 06.02.2012 the car had done 52,178 kms. If here was any manufacturing defect in the car, in such a case, the car could not run for 52,178 kms. Therefore, under these circumstances and in the absence of any expert evidence, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.
11. In view of the above, we do not see any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
12. Order announced on 18.07.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)